From: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.7-rc1 commit f10ca5da5bd71e5cefed7995e75a7c873ce3816e category: feature bugzilla: https://atomgit.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/8335 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?i... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Commit 6018e1f407cc ("bpf: implement numbers iterator") added the BTF_TYPE_EMIT line that this patch is modifying. The struct btf_iter_num doesn't exist, so only a forward declaration is emitted in BTF: FWD 'btf_iter_num' fwd_kind=struct That commit was probably hoping to ensure that struct bpf_iter_num is emitted in vmlinux BTF. A previous version of this patch changed the line to emit the correct type, but Yonghong confirmed that it would definitely be emitted regardless in [0], so this patch simply removes the line. This isn't marked "Fixes" because the extraneous btf_iter_num FWD wasn't causing any issues that I noticed, aside from mild confusion when I looked through the code. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/25d08207-43e6-36a8-5e0f-47a913d4cda5@linux.dev/ Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231013204426.1074286-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun2@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c index 96856f130cbf..833faa04461b 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c @@ -793,8 +793,6 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int end) BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num)); BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num)); - BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct btf_iter_num); - /* start == end is legit, it's an empty range and we'll just get NULL * on first (and any subsequent) bpf_iter_num_next() call */ -- 2.34.1